|
Project 6: Youth Advocates Project
The project
1.
The Youth Advocates Project is led by the DfEE. The Social Exclusion
Unit, the Home Office and DETR all have an interest in the project but
have no responsibility for its delivery. The project is managed from
DfEE Head Quarters in Sheffield but is delivered through seven pilots
across the country. The project targets those disaffected young people
that would otherwise not be picked up through mainstream provision with
comprehensive one to one support.
Background
2.
Disaffected young people are a key target group for the UK government.
Through the Investing in Young People Programme DfEE aims to prevent
disaffection in later school years and encourage young people to achieve
more at school in college or on work based training. Research undertaken
over the last few years has however identified another group for whom
conventional assistance of this nature is insufficient. This group suffers
from ‘multiple disadvantage’ (some 90,000 16 and 17 year olds) having
no formal qualifications, often having special educational needs and
requiring additional support to deal with a range of issues from teenage
pregnancy, drug abuse and crime. 3.
The rationale for an inter-departmental response to these issues
is therefore clear as the current approach to meeting this priority
group’s needs is fragmented. The current range of initiatives such as
New Deal, Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, the work of the social exclusion
unit and the Youth Offending Teams transcend a number of government
departments and deal with separate aspects of youth disaffection. The
ISB money will allow for a single interface between hard to reach groups
and this provision. The advocates are drawn from a range of existing
provision including qualified teachers, social workers, youth workers,
probation services, careers services and the voluntary sector. They
are tasked with the following.
|
Key tasks for the advocates:
n
liasing with key agencies
in identifying those young people within their patch who had,
or were at risk of ‘slipping through the gaps
n
making contact with
these young people and establishing their priority needs (this
ranges from education and training through to medical, housing
or other forms of support)
n
connecting them with
agencies best placed to help meet these priority needs
n
ensuring continuing
support for their development towards employability and independence
|
4
The project objectives are set out below. The initial bid went
to some lengths to demonstrate how the Youth Advocates project contributes
towards the overarching objectives of the Invest to Save Budget and
this analysis is also summarised below.
|
Objectives of the Youth Advocates
Project
n
develop innovative
approaches to social inclusion of young people which cut across
traditional agency boundaries
n
encourage information
sharing between agencies dealing with young people at a local
level;
n
spread best practice
from a range of perspectives in dealing with problems associated
with young people
n
ensure efficient and
effective take-up of appropriate services by young people who
need their help
n
reduce the complexity
and expense of multi-agency approaches to tackling the portfolio
of problems some young people face
n
assess the effectiveness
of youth advocacy in dealing with disaffection amongst young
people
n
apply lessons learned
on wider scale in following up current Social Exclusion Unit
work in 16-18 yr olds.
|
|
Contribution to ISB Objectives
n
joint working between
different parts of government at a strategic level information
is shared between government departments, at a local level information
and case data is shared between the Youth Advocate and the different
agencies
n
innovative delivery
of public services will be achieved by ensuring young people’s
take up of services is closely monitored and related to need.
n
reducing the cost/and
or improving public service delivery will come about by
exploiting the links and synergy between youth disaffection
and other areas including crime, unemployment and health issues.
|
Project initiation, design and specification
5
The project is managed by DfEE, but relevant inter-departmental
interests such as the Social Exclusion Unit and DETR are regularly informed
and given an opportunity for contribution through various cross-departmental
committees supporting the Governments initiatives on social exclusion.
6
An evaluation Steering Group was established in April 1999 one
month into the project and the decision was taken at this stage to deliver
Youth Advocates as an adjunct to the New Start Round 2 initiative. The
pilot projects were in turn to be evaluated as part of the wider New
Start Round 2 evaluation. This integration with New Start was not expressed
as part of the initial bid but appears in a revised project implementation
plan in April. At this time responsibility for the project moved from
DfEE in London to Sheffield as they had overall responsibility for the
New Start initiative.7
The project implementation plan identified possible risks as
the time required to recruit suitable individuals to fulfil the role
of advocate. The contingency plan was to second individuals at short
notice from comparable professions. The bid project costs are set out
in Table 1 below.
|
Table 1. Project
costs and ISB funding (all revenue costs)
|
| |
Total bid costs
(£k)
|
|
TOTAL COSTS , (all current/revenue)
including
7 pilots each with
advocate salary
on-costs
disposables
evaluation
|
267K
|
|
ISB contribution (%of total
costs)
|
200K
(74%)
|
|
Departmental contribution (%of
total costs)
|
67K
(26%)
|
8 The figures are based on the assumption that each advocate
would be based at a ‘host institution’ which would receive funding for
accommodating the advocate and providing basic office facilities. It
was initially proposed that the pilot project would cover urban, rural
and suburban settings. DfEE also stated in the initial bid that it was
their intention to contribute funding in future years through the Investing
in Young People programme. The expression of interest and full bid was
prepared by the Inclusion and Renewal Team at DfEE and the bid was accepted
by HM Treasury subject only to the standard ISB terms and conditions.
During the SQW visits partners did not report any problems with bidding
for ISB finding and the bidding process seems to be have been straightforward
and easy to follow. 9 The
benefits can be summarised under two headings: benefits for young people
and benefits for local agencies.
|
Project Benefits
For Young People:
n
effective support
and guidance for those with multiple problems
n
rusted champions of
their rights
n
access with expert
support to range of agencies which can help them sort out their
problems
n
improved life chances,
either through education/training or better housing and health
etc
For Local Agencies:
n
developing consistency
of approaches
n
increased awareness
of the roles of other agencies
n
a client needs centred
approach that can work beyond agency boundaries
|
Project Management
10 The project is managed by DfEE
with Government Offices taking responsibility for their respective pilot
projects and contracting with the Careers Service/deliverers in each
area. The pilot projects have not used a recognised or formal project
management methodology such as Prince. This does not seem to have had
any negative effects on managing the project or in providing the relevant
project management data. This is probably due to the project being led
and funded by a single department. From our discussions, however it
was not clear whether the respective pilots had worked together to share
information, lessons or good practice. Furthermore there did not seem
to be an effective flow of information between the Government Offices
who did not share a common understanding of the purpose of the ISB scheme.
This was due to the fact that the ISB bidding process was handled centrally
and in most cases the separate Government Offices only became involved
once the funding had been approved.
Project outcomes, including contingency and monitoring
11 The milestones and dates for
the project are set out in Table 2 below. Seven pilot project were set
up covering London (Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets), Sheffield,
Bradford, and Coventry. The only slippage was a slight delay in setting
up the evaluation steering group, and a delay in producing the initial
evaluation report. This was due to the Youth Advocates project being
linked to the start of the wider New Start evaluation. The Centre for
Guidance Studies was commissioned to do the evaluation, and their draft
report was produced in September, an additional report from the same
researchers to answer some additional questions on the impact of the
pilots.
|
Table 2: Original
and revised milestones for Youth Advocates Project
|
|
Set up Evaluation Steering Group
|
Planned timescale at bid
|
Revised timescale as of November
99
|
|
Start pilot project 7 pilot projects
|
March 1999
|
April 1999
|
|
Process and impact evaluation
|
April 1999
|
May 1999
|
12 Each pilot project has established
monitoring systems to capture the following:
|
Pilot project monitoring
n
financial and monitoring
information
n
a complete client
record on each young person
n
tracking of eventual
destination of clients
n
a monthly return recording
the advocates caseload to go
n
a 6-monthly progress
report to HM treasury
n
a process and impact
evaluation
|
13 There is no shortage of evaluation
material on the pilot projects and individual mangers seem, to be tracking
the client groups as specified above. There is however a lack of consistency
from region to region in the reporting and the amount of monitoring
information available at the time of our project visit.
Additionality, longer term effects and value for money
14 All partners consulted in the
preparation of this case study argued a compelling case for the pilot
projects representing high additionality. Much of the funding currently
targeted at young people is targeted at improving qualifications and
providing basic skills. The activities funded through Youth Advocates
on the other hand provide for a different target group that would otherwise
remain completely outside mainstream provision and the Careers Service
or Youth Service. Furthermore it is through the outreach activities
of the Youth Advocates that the genuine synergy and joined-up working
has been achieved. It is clear that those marginalised from conventional
sources of help often have to confront a range of ‘barriers’ to get
back on track. Having to deal with a multitude of agencies and individuals
to address issues can be confusing, difficult and above all off putting.
The continuous help and support delivered in their own language, by
a single person or advocate can often be the only way to provide the
necessary link with relevant professional help.
15
The project was not thought to have had any displacement effects
within the partner organisations as the majority of the project work
was undertaken by individuals recruited to undertake the advocacy role.
It was felt that the project work undertaken thus far already demonstrates
the potential for long-term benefits. In particular the innovative approach
to tackling social exclusion issues has cut across traditional agency
boundaries and forced practitioners to rethink the way they approach
the complex range of problems which face young people. The project is
an important way of further testing and refining the role of advocacy,
mentoring or personal advisors with a view to mainstreaming this activity
through the new Connexions Strategy recently launched by the Government
at the end of 1999.
16 Partners were reluctant
to make specific judgements about value for money as the project had
not had time to demonstrate this at the time of the visit and as yet
a typical client caseload can not be identified. There was however a
large degree of consensus on the following points which were supported
by the project monitoring reports:
- the pilot projects have led to a better understanding of the patterns
of disadvantage facing young people;
- personal advisors can make significant
improvements to soft outcomes – notably client esteem and self –
confidence;
- 78% of young people who left the
six project which took part in the evaluation of New Start have
subsequently made a positive progression into education, training
or work
Administrative and accountability issues
17
No major administrative or accountability issues were brought
to light in our discussions. The DfEE has been running the project throughout
with financial and management accountability. The only significant issue
was the change in lead department from London to Sheffield to reflect
the integration with New Start.
Conclusions
18
This project differs from many others funded under round one
of the Invest to Save Budget in that it involves a sole lead partner
co-ordinating a number of regional pilots. In many ways this has made
management and accountability issues more straightforward and has resulted
in a programme with very few delays and little slippage. This particular
structure makes it harder to demonstrate synergy and inter departmental
working at a strategic level. Other departments such as the Home Office
and DETR undoubtedly have a role in the complex issues of youth disaffection
yet they are not formally represented in the management structure although
they are part of a wider on-going consultative process. At the delivery
level the real benefits are clearly visible as the Youth Advocates represent
a tangible interface between vulnerable youngsters and the multitude
of support available. Moreover the independent evaluations that have
been commissioned are largely positive and stress the value of the personal
approach.
19
All partners were enthusiastic about the level additionality
brought about by the ISB funding but it remains the case that this approach
was part of the new Connexions Strategy planned by the Government. This
begs the question as to whether this activity would have been adopted
and funded anyway without the example set by the pathfinders.
20
The project consists of pilots operating throughout the country
and given the difficulty we have had in assembling consistent data on
the projects for this case study it could be concluded that some form
of overall project management system would have been beneficial.
|
